Anticipating that his doctrines may "alarm those who think that, apart from _Omniscience belonging to the Jews_, (!) the proper conclusion of reason is Atheism;"--(in other words, that the rejection of a belief in _the inspiration of Prophecy_ will eventually conduct a man to the rejection of GOD Himself;) the Reverend writer declares that "it is not inconsistent with the idea that ALMIGHTY GOD has been pleased to educate men and nations, employing imagination no less than conscience, and suffering His lessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and its shortcomings." (p. 77.) (In other words, that what Scripture emphatically declares, and what men have for thousands of years believed to be inspired predictions of future events, are none other than the effusions of a lively imagination, or the suggestions of a well-informed conscience.) "The prophetical disquisitions," (p. 77,) therefore, are subject to error of every imaginable description; and possess no higher attributes than belong to any ordinary human work by "a master's hand." (p. 77.) "The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves men of like passions with ourselves, and we are promised illumination from the Spirit which dwelt in them." (p. 78.) We may not think of the Sacred Writers as "passionless machines, and call Luther and Milton 'uninspired.'" (_Ibid._) "The great result is to vindicate the work of the Eternal Spirit; that abiding influence which underlies all others, and in which converge all images of old time and means of grace now: temple, Scripture, finger, and Hand of GOD; and again, preaching, sacraments, waters which comfort, and flame which burns." (p. 78.) It follows,--"If such a Spirit did not dwell in the Church, the Bible would not be inspired, for _the Bible is_, before all things, _the written voice of the congregation_." (p. 78.) Offended Reason, (for Piety has no place here,) has not time to reclaim against so preposterous a statement; for it follows immediately,--"Bold as such a theory of Inspiration (!) may sound, it was the earliest creed of the Church, and it is the only one to which the facts of Scripture answer." (p. 78.) ... What reply _can_ be offered to such an outrageous statement, but flat contradiction? What more effectual refutation of such a 'theory' (?) concerning Scripture, than simply to state it?